In each of the four lines, there is (or least should be) exactly the same number of characters.

So which of the four lines is most difficult to measure mathematically?

In mathematics (or, indeed, in general) is a highly improbable outcome highly unlikely, likely or a racing certainty?

Yet 'The cat sat on the mat.' actually tells you something. You asked which has more information in it. You didn't ask which was easier to measure mathematically. So from your explanation, I was correct. Now this is a major flaw with the scientists methods. You said meaning is not a measure of information. That means they should not say because 2 animal fossils are similar but are different species, that one came from another naturally. That to them, that is the meaning of the fossils. But as you say , they can't measure that or test it. So they have no business talking about 'evolution' , because that is the meaning of the fossils, to them.That is exactly what I have been saying. They don't have a method of research that detects the meaning of the similarity of the fossils. So to give a cause to that is meaningless.

Roger wrote:If you are talking about probability then you need the maths to back up your otherwise unsubstantiated assertion.Why is it that "9--><£$&F#@?}]|Q=!up5n (which is utter gobbledegook) have more information in it that the other three lines?

It doesn't, unless it is a code but you said it is nothing but gobbledegook . But I would be interested in what you say about it.You asked which had more information, nothing about math.Sos we are only looking for the information in it. Not math.

Yet 'The cat sat on the mat.' actually tells you something. You asked which has more information in it. You didn't ask which was easier to measure mathematically. So from your explanation, I was correct. Now this is a major flaw with the scientists methods. You said meaning is not a measure of information. That means they should not say because 2 animal fossils are similar but are different species, that one came from another naturally. That to them, that is the meaning of the fossils. But as you say , they can't measure that or test it. So they have no business talking about 'evolution' , because that is the meaning of the fossils, to them.That is exactly what I have been saying. They don't have a method of research that detects the meaning of the similarity of the fossils. So to give a cause to that is meaningless.

Sorry I'm completely and utterly lost now. What does this mean exactly? This is like when the kids were little and brought home their artwork and you had to guess what is was.

Roger wrote:If you are talking about probability then you need the maths to back up your otherwise unsubstantiated assertion.Why is it that "9--><£$&F#@?}]|Q=!up5n (which is utter gobbledegook) have more information in it that the other three lines?

It doesn't, unless it is a code but you said it is nothing but gobbledegook . But I would be interested in what you say about it.You asked which had more information, nothing about math.Sos we are only looking for the information in it. Not math.

Information is measured mathematically; there is a huge body of mathematics called information theory and the Discovery Institute has tried heavily, and unsuccessfully, to use it to identify design.

Anyone with even the most cursory knowledge of maths would know that "9--><£$&F#@?}]|Q=!up5n has more information in it than the other three lines.

You can scream as much as you want that it doesn't. The only way information can be measured is by maths. Same as distance, volume, mass, speed....

Yet 'The cat sat on the mat.' actually tells you something. You asked which has more information in it. You didn't ask which was easier to measure mathematically. So from your explanation, I was correct. Now this is a major flaw with the scientists methods. You said meaning is not a measure of information. That means they should not say because 2 animal fossils are similar but are different species, that one came from another naturally. That to them, that is the meaning of the fossils. But as you say , they can't measure that or test it. So they have no business talking about 'evolution' , because that is the meaning of the fossils, to them.That is exactly what I have been saying. They don't have a method of research that detects the meaning of the similarity of the fossils. So to give a cause to that is meaningless.

Sorry I'm completely and utterly lost now. What does this mean exactly? This is like when the kids were little and brought home their artwork and you had to guess what is was.

Anyone able to enlighten me?

It's just empty rhetoric, Cathy, He's no idea of the difference between meaning and information.

Yet 'The cat sat on the mat.' actually tells you something. You asked which has more information in it. You didn't ask which was easier to measure mathematically. So from your explanation, I was correct. Now this is a major flaw with the scientists methods. You said meaning is not a measure of information. That means they should not say because 2 animal fossils are similar but are different species, that one came from another naturally. That to them, that is the meaning of the fossils. But as you say , they can't measure that or test it. So they have no business talking about 'evolution' , because that is the meaning of the fossils, to them.That is exactly what I have been saying. They don't have a method of research that detects the meaning of the similarity of the fossils. So to give a cause to that is meaningless.

Sorry I'm completely and utterly lost now. What does this mean exactly? This is like when the kids were little and brought home their artwork and you had to guess what is was.

Anyone able to enlighten me?

The scientists try to give meaning to the fossils. They find a few fossils, each one is a certain animal. That is the science. But because some are similar to others the meaning they put on that is one came from the other. When you mentioned the art work and guess what it is, the scientists do the same thing. Because they have this hypothesis of 'evolution' and have no idea how life started, they come up with stories, that says we are related to every thing else. So that means if you eat an apple you are really eating one of your distant cousins. The interesting thing is that if asked the scientists say life can not just happen now, even though the conditions are better now than in the past. Also we don't see any almost humans or any ex-humans. We are distinctly human. And humans only have offspring that are human. The same with Finches their offspring are other Finches. There are no offspring that are in between the species. So I am wondering what planet they are from?

MrDunday wrote:The scientists try to give meaning to the fossils. They find a few fossils, each one is a certain animal. That is the science. But because some are similar to others the meaning they put on that is one came from the other. When you mentioned the art work and guess what it is, the scientists do the same thing. Because they have this hypothesis of 'evolution' and have no idea how life started, they come up with stories, that says we are related to every thing else. So that means if you eat an apple you are really eating one of your distant cousins. The interesting thing is that if asked the scientists say life can not just happen now, even though the conditions are better now than in the past. Also we don't see any almost humans or any ex-humans. We are distinctly human. And humans only have offspring that are human. The same with Finches their offspring are other Finches. There are no offspring that are in between the species. So I am wondering what planet they are from?

Scientists measure and interpret evidence, same as everyone else.

You are a moronic iodiot. Evolution doesn't say that humans can have offsprings that are not humans or any member of another species can have an offspring that is a new species. Speciation involves a change in the frequency of alleles but I suspect you have no idea what an allele is. Creationists rarely do.

You are a moronic iodiot. Evolution doesn't say that humans can have offsprings that are not humans or any member of another species can have an offspring that is a new species. Speciation involves a change in the frequency of alleles but I suspect you have no idea what an allele is. Creationists rarely do.

al·lele [uh-leel] Show IPA

noun Genetics . any of several forms of a gene, usually arising through mutation, that are responsible for hereditary variation.

this is correct, mutations can cause variation, but nowhere here does it say an animal becomes another kind of animal. All that it is talking about is variation, of the same kind of animal. So Finches have 120 species of Finches. But none become something else.

MrDunday wrote:this is correct, mutations can cause variation, but nowhere here does it say an animal becomes another kind of animal. All that it is talking about is variation, of the same kind of animal. So Finches have 120 species of Finches. But none become something else.

No scientist has ever claimed "an animal becomes another kind of animal".

Worse still for you, no creationist has ever defined what a "kind" is.

The scientists try to give meaning to the fossils. They find a few fossils, each one is a certain animal. That is the science. But because some are similar to others the meaning they put on that is one came from the other.

Thats not strictly true now is it Mr Dunday.

Scientific theories make predictions. Evolution predicts that if we evolved certain features will be found appearing at certain times. For example in the genes or in the fossil record. For the fossil record they predict that certain types of fossils with certain types of body features will be found and will be found first appearing in fairly large windows of time. Those fossils can then continue to exist, you don't have to become extinct for things to move on and evolve around you but they cannot exist BEFORE a certain window.

If mammals evolve from reptiles than certain features, for example jaw to inner ear, should be seen. That is, if the jaw bones of reptiles slowing migrate to become the inner ear of mammals we should find fossils showing that process, within the time window between clear reptiles and no mammals and clear mammals. We do find that particular sequence along with many other of the slow tiny changes in many other features that distinguish the two groups. There may well be gaps, but you can work out what the picture on a jigsaw is when there are only a few gaps. Now creationists need to explain this apparent sequence and they need to state how it is a prediction of their theory. But they don't and can't. Cos the logical prediction of your theory is that all fossils found together should be totally mixed. So human, dinosaur, cats, wolves and synapsids should all be found in the same fossil bearing rocks. The prediction of finches only being finches is that of a totally mixed up fossil record containing all kinds. We should find some kind of generic finches in the cambrian if finches can only be finches.

The fossils found fit that prediction simple as. If that changed scientists would adapt their thinking to fit the new evidence and develop new theories and new predictions. But those changes in thinking would be based on what the new evidence suggests. They would not default to creationism cos that would not be what the evidence shows. Until you can provide logical evidence that all kinds were created together and could not evolve at all beyond certain limits you're a bit stuck.

this is correct, mutations can cause variation, but nowhere here does it say an animal becomes another kind of animal. All that it is talking about is variation, of the same kind of animal. So Finches have 120 species of Finches. But none become something else.

Mutations cause variation - at what point does that stop? And Darwin was looking at variation in finches because that was his first look at variation. The onus is on you to prove conclusively that there is a stop point in those mutations preventing them slowly changing to something else.

As for not observing that is that it is a slow and gradual process usually. Changes do not all appear at once and when they do their has to be some selective advantage for them to take hold and move on. You need to look at the picture in the longer term and on a larger scale than simple generation to generation. The movements of bones in fossils is tiny over shorter times its only when you stand back you can see what happened.

The only crap analogy I can think of is the temperature of boiling water is very different to that of ice. If you looked at the two you couldn't imagine how they could change. If you started to heat the ice slowly and took the temperature every half second till it boiled you would barely notice the change. The change in temperature at every half second would be virtually undetectable. But stand back at the end at look at the longer larger picture and a huge change has occurred. Does that make it any clearer.

So the onus is on you to explain what we actually see in terms of the fossil record as it fits pre made predictions by science. And the onus is on you to show where mutations know where to stop to ensure that finches slowly and in isolation over time can only ever be finches. Where on the genome are the stop mutating and changing codons. And why are creationists not looking for them?

The scientists try to give meaning to the fossils. They find a few fossils, each one is a certain animal. That is the science. But because some are similar to others the meaning they put on that is one came from the other

Have you thought that one through Mr Dunday? If two animals are similar to each other - say a black fluffy thing with four legs, and a tail saying miaow and a tabby fluffy thing with four legs, tail, miaow - should be not be putting some kind of meaning on it and saying they are related in some way and perhaps give them a name - i don't, cat maybe? When you see similar features in lions do you not assume some relationship and call them all felines?

Isn't that the whole creationist concept of kinds? Or did each species get onto the ark?

If something is largely reptile but looking as if its features are starting to move to mammal, eg jaw bones moved slightly relative to the range of normal reptile kind, what is wrong with giving it its own unique name and classifying it reptile with tiny tendency to mammalian like features and so on thru the fossils finds till you get to mammal with slight reptilian like features. How would you explain what is seen.

"... the logical prediction of your theory is that all fossils found together should be totally mixed. So human, dinosaur, cats, wolves and synapsids should all be found in the same fossil bearing rocks".

There should be SOME mixing certainly. Especially if Noah's Flood was, in its earlier stages at least, like a large tidal wave or tsunami - something that was capable of 'carving out' the Grand Canyon during a period of weeks and months.

MrDunday wrote:this is correct, mutations can cause variation, but nowhere here does it say an animal becomes another kind of animal. All that it is talking about is variation, of the same kind of animal. So Finches have 120 species of Finches. But none become something else.

No scientist has ever claimed "an animal becomes another kind of animal".

Worse still for you, no creationist has ever defined what a "kind" is.

What a bloody idiotic argument.

shrug.

Then if what you say is true, if all you have is Finches, that is all you would ever have, even though there are 120 species of Finches. The example I give is that a Lion and Tiger can mate, they produce a Liger. A Liger can make but their offspring is not strong and it has to be helped to survive by the zoo keeps. It would never last in the wild. That is the end of the line for that. But in the end they are all cats. They never became anything else.Now that is true I can not claim to know what a 'kind' . But the scientists do not know what a species is.

The question of how best to define "species" is one that has occupied biologists for centuries, and the debate itself has become known as the species problem. Darwin wrote in chapter II of On the Origin of Species: No one definition has satisfied all naturalists; yet every naturalist knows vaguely what he means when he speaks of a species. Generally the term includes the unknown element of a distinct act of creation.[11] But later, in The Descent of Man, when addressing "The question whether mankind consists of one or several species", Darwin revised his opinion to say:it is a hopeless endeavour to decide this point on sound grounds, until some definition of the term "species" is generally accepted; and the definition must not include an element that cannot possibly be ascertained, such as an act of creation.[12]A usable definition of the word "species" and reliable methods of identifying particular species are essential for stating and testing biological theories and for measuring biodiversity, though other taxonomic levels such as families may be considered in broad-scale studies.[1] Extinct species known only from fossils are generally difficult to assign precise taxonomic rankings, which is why higher taxonomic levels such as families are often used for fossil-based studies.[1][2]...

It is surprisingly difficult to define the word "species" in a way that applies to all naturally occurring organisms, and the debate among biologists about how to define "species" and how to identify actual species is called the species problem. Over two dozen distinct definitions of "species" are in use amongst biologists.[9]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

Confusion on the meaning of "Species"

Species is one of several ranks in the hierarchical system of scientific classification. These are called taxonomic ranks, and the system of classification includes, in addition to species the ranks of genus and family and others all the way up to kingdom. Usually the rank of species is the basal rank, meaning that in the system of scientific classification species is the bottommost rank that includes no other ranks. However sometimes when one species, that is already named and described, is found to actually include two slightly different kinds of organisms, it is necessary to use the rank of subspecies.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_Problem

So the scientists want classify life into species but , they have a real problem with that. They can't classify their own classifications.Do you see how all of this the scientists are saying, falls a part when you look into it?

Scientific theories make predictions. Evolution predicts that if we evolved certain features will be found appearing at certain times. For example in the genes or in the fossil record. For the fossil record they predict that certain types of fossils with certain types of body features will be found and will be found first appearing in fairly large windows of time. Those fossils can then continue to exist, you don't have to become extinct for things to move on and evolve around you but they cannot exist BEFORE a certain window.

Prediction only comes from creation. If the scientists actually thought about this, they have to agree with that. With Cats for example,can have adaption, and breeding, and natural selection, and mutations are all random. They will cause variety, but only in their own kind. The point of mutation is that you can not predict it. It is mistakes that happen. You can not know ahead of time what that mistake will be. Adaption depends on the conditions, and you don't know ahead of time what that will bring. Natural selection depends on the conditions as well. Breeding comes from 2 animals so it depends on the genes of both animals . but you can predict that they will still be cats. That tells you that creation is the only answer, because if all you have is cats that is all you will ever have. That is the evidence we have.

a_haworthroberts wrote:"... the logical prediction of your theory is that all fossils found together should be totally mixed. So human, dinosaur, cats, wolves and synapsids should all be found in the same fossil bearing rocks".

There should be SOME mixing certainly. Especially if Noah's Flood was, in its earlier stages at least, like a large tidal wave or tsunami - something that was capable of 'carving out' the Grand Canyon during a period of weeks and months.

Actually the evidence for the flood is world wide.Sea shells on top of mountains, rocks moved to different locations, in many directions. Mammoths will fresh food in their teeth, as they were quickly frozen, in northern areas. No just one but many, in different areas. And a flood could have caused the Grand canyon. People all around the world ( tribes) all have a flood story and the first humans. Though many have different ideas about it. but they contain the same idea. Because of that scientists realize that something major happened around the earth.Giant bones of humans have been found around the earth. The scientists know this but hide it. These are the giants spoken of in the bible. These are not just a single giant, but groups of them.

Holocaust of GiantsThe Great Smithsonian Cover-up(reprinted with permission) Noted Native American author and professor of law emeritus, Vine Deloria, writes in a personal communication:

It's probably better that so few of the ruins and remains were tied in with the Smithsonian because they give good reason to believe the ending of the Indiana Jones movie—a great warehouse where the real secrets of earth history are buried.

Modern day archaeology and anthropology have nearly sealed the door on our imaginations, broadly interpreting the North American past as devoid of anything unusual in the way of great cultures characterized by a people of unusual demeanor. The great interloper of ancient burial grounds, the nineteenth century Smithsonian Institution, created a one-way portal, through which uncounted bones have been spirited. This door and the contents of its vault are virtually sealed off to anyone, but government officials. Among these bones may lay answers not even sought by these officials concerning the deep past.

The first hint we had about the possible existence of an actual race of tall, strong, and intellectually sophisticated people, was in researching old township and county records. Many of these were quoting from old diaries and letters that were combined, for posterity, in the 1800s from diaries going back to the 1700s. Says Vine in this understanding:

♦ Bones of giants have been uncovered in the United States in New York, California, Ohio, Tennessee, Illinois, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Missouri, Nevada, Indiana, Minnesota, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Arizona, New Mexico, and Kentucky from as early as 1792 to as late as 1965.....

A skeleton found in 1692 in a tomb near Angers, France, measured seventeen-feet, four-inches....

At Agadir, in Morocco, the French Captain Lafanechere discovered a complete arsenal of hunting weapons, including five hundred double-edged axes weighing over seventeen pounds, 20 times as heavy as would be convenient for modern man. To use these tools would require the hands of a size appropriate to a giant with a stature of at least 13 feet.

In 1812, an Italian journal reported that in the valley of Mazara, in Sicily, the skeleton of a man ten-feet and three-inches in length was dug up in the same area that several other human skeletons of gigantic size had previously been found. In 1950, in the Euphrates Valley of Southeast Turkey, many tombs containing giants 14 to 16 feet tall were unearthed.